Since no atheist has seriously attempted to answer the OP questions (at http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3001 ) , according to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“no equivocation wiggle roomÃ¢â‚¬Â stance, I am posing the following line of questioning (again, the same rules below apply):

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).3- If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know, simply say Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â; because you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. This includes making statements like (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â because; you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating. 4- If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“NegativeÃ¢â‚¬Â assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating. 5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating. 6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting. 7- If you post links to other peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).Opinions are fine if they can be backed up by facts, but equivocations will not be allowed.

So the questions are:

1- Do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism?

2- Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist?

3- ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm

4- Could this shift of Bradlaugh be due to the lack of a origins foundation for atheism, and therefore the need to shift the goal posts due to a lack of said foundations?

Evolution is treated more like a political agenda than a scientific one. That is why dodging, equivocating, stereotyping, etc... are used. Because it no longer matters who is right. It's who can win a verbal fight. One where insulting others and being prejudice is cool, and if good enough like Dawkins. You can be king.

I laugh at Dawkins everytime I see him use these tactics. It shows how immature he is, and how weak the theory he represent is that he no longer uses science to defend it.

I'm waiting for the new section of the scientific method to be added. Which includes: Winning verbal debates by any means possible. Then maybe in detail it will list things like: How to insult people in the name of evolution.

Because I find it ironic that evolutionists claim evolution does not teach hatred. But for all those who hate H*vind, what is the main reason? They never met the guy in almost every case. Same reason I get hate e-mail and death threats every so often. They always make it clear they are evolution supporters. They never met me either.

And what else is ironic about the comment on evolution being more political than scientific. Was this last election when evolutionists used evolution as the agenda to keep Huckabee from getting elected.

1- Do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism?

I apologize I do not know anything about this Bradlaugh's assertion. But I personally don't dilly-dally around with the definition of Atheism. I might even go further than then normal Atheist. I say there is nothing not of nature in the universe, that there is no divine beings(s) in existence. I say it does not exist unless there is proof of existence.

2- Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist?

I think its fair for both sides to ask for the burden of proof. I will go more into this in the next question though...

3- ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm

Each stance has what they feel to be the basis of the universe on their side. To the Theist they see everything in the light that there is a God, and that this God created everything. To them everything makes perfect sense with this God in it.

To the Atheist they see everything in the light that there is no God. Everything that they witness makes more sense to them that there isn't some divine being guiding it along.

They are opposite sides of the same coin, both feel that they have logic on their sides. both arguments feel completely foreign to the other, so both sides demand burden of proof from the other.

4- Could this shift of Bradlaugh be due to the lack of a origins foundation for atheism, and therefore the need to shift the goal posts due to a lack of said foundations?

I don't have a response to this question mainly due to me not knowing enough about this shift of Bradlaugh... sorry.

So if evolution is sooo scientific, why is it being used as a tool to get rid of Christians?

Side note: I know this does not apply to all Evolutionists. Not speaking out says volumes.

I think there is a difference here. Getting rid of the Christian right does not equate to getting rid of Christians.

The Christian right outside of the Christian circle is unfortunately seen as a force to shove religious stigmata down non-religious peoples throats. Such as H*m*sexuals rights to marry, or have a civil union. Outside of the Christian Right there is no reason for 2 men, or women from being in a loving carrying relationship. This is just one example where friction exists.

I for one would not wish to remove religions from the world. I see that there is a lot of good that they have done for people. There are a ton of religious backed charities that honestly try to make lives better for those in need.

I unfortunately didn't read far enough into it to see much other than people being rather juvenile.I think there is a difference here.Ã‚Â Getting rid of the Christian right does not equate to getting rid of Christians.

Eliminate: extinguish: terminate, end, or take out. obviate: do away with kill in large numbers;

The Christian right outside of the Christian circle is unfortunately seen as a force to shove religious stigmata down non-religious peoples throats.Ã‚Â Such as H*m*s*xuals rights to marry, or have a civil union.Ã‚Â Outside of the Christian Right there is no reason for 2 men, or women from being in a loving carrying relationship.Ã‚Â This is just one example where friction exists.

So when does it end? So if pedophiles say it's their right to have s@x with children, and they say "you" are un-politically correct for not agreeing. Does that make what they say should exist right? If I say you cannot cram down my children's throat evolution in public schools, is that going to stop it? Nope because you are going to say: That's my right to do that. So it makes it ironic that you have a problem with someone excercising their freedom, so you take it away. But in turn have no problem with exercising your own and take another person freedom away while doing it.

I for one would not wish to remove religions from the world.Ã‚Â I see that there is a lot of good that they have done for people.Ã‚Â There are a ton of religious backed charities that honestly try to make lives better for those in need.

As long as they are operated within the realm of no infringing on your freedoms, while their's is taken away, right?

Free speech and freedom exists for all, or it's not freedom. When the will of one side is taken away only because the other disagrees. Freedom is then turned into a matrix control system. Where the favored side gets their way always, and the other side either has to concede or fight. People will only step back so far until they say enough is enough.

Do you see a problem with the atheist-evolutionist movment on YouTube eliminating Christian-creationist freedom of expression? Getting rid of the opposition only proves evolution can no longer stand up to any opposing views. And I see ZERO atheists speaking out against this.

Do you see a problem with the atheist-evolutionist movment on YouTube eliminating Christian-creationist freedom of expression? Getting rid of the opposition only proves evolution can no longer stand up to any opposing views. And I see ZERO atheists speaking out against this.

Are you referring to where the creationists issued false DMCAs against atheist videos, for which the atheists threatened legal action?

1- Do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism?

What's Bradlaugh's assertion?

2- Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist?

As far as I see it, yes, the burden of proof is on the theist. There's no shifting involved -- that's just where the burden lies.

3- ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm

Yes. I should here note that my atheism isn't of the form "God doesn't exist", but is of the form "I see no reason to think God exists, and so for all practical purposes I assume he doesn't." I don't side with atheists who say that there's evidence for the lack of existence of a deity.

A good place to start is doing some research into Charles Bradlaugh and his change of definition of atheism (from the classical sense).

As far as I see it, yes, the burden of proof is on the theist.Ã‚Â

Why? IF you are going to make an assertion, you need to back it up with more than mere opinion. But, to stem this equivocation, I suggest you look at OP rule # 4

There's no shifting involved -- that's just where the burden lies.

Actually, there was a monumental shift. AND to understand the shift you must do a little research on your own. But, to stem this equivocation, I suggest you look at OP rule # 4 & 5

Yes.Ã‚Â I should here note that my atheism isn't of the form "God doesn't exist", but is of the form "I see no reason to think God exists, and so for all practical purposes I assume he doesn't."Ã‚Â

If you Ã¢â‚¬Å“see no reason to think God existsÃ¢â‚¬Â, then you are saying God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. You do see that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you? Your assumption IS your beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ But, to stem this equivocation, I suggest you look at OP rule # 4

I don't side with atheists who say that there's evidence for the lack of existence of a deity.

If you Ã¢â‚¬Å“see no reason to think God existsÃ¢â‚¬Â, you are saying there is no evidence that god exists. Therefore, you are saying you believe in a lack of evidence. But, to stem this equivocation, I suggest you look at OP rule # 4

Eliminate: extinguish: terminate, end, or take out. obviate: do away with kill in large numbers;

Well then that is going above and beyond juvenile to being outright disturbing. Fortunately there is no way to actually defend these types of outbursts. People need to learn to play nicely. This goes for both sides.

So when does it end? So if pedophiles say it's their right to have s@x with children, and they say "you" are un-politically correct for not agreeing. Does that make what they say should exist right?

Ikester, slippery slope arguments are fundamentally flawed because they make the wrong assumption that people will not be able to tell the difference between acceptable and not acceptable in the future.

When talking about to adults of the same s@x they are able to make these informed decisions themselves. They are able to enter contracts. They are responsible for their own actions. Children are never, and will never be assumed to be able to make such decisions.

pedos are predators looking for a way to fulfill their own desires. This is more along the lines of rape than anything else.

If I say you cannot cram down my children's throat evolution in public schools, is that going to stop it? Nope because you are going to say: That's my right to do that. So it makes it ironic that you have a problem with someone excercising their freedom, so you take it away. But in turn have no problem with exercising your own and take another person freedom away while doing it.As long as they are operated within the realm of no infringing on your freedoms, while their's is taken away, right?

I can see you have a lot of anger with these issues here and I'm not too sure where to begin. Do I think people don't have the right to discuss their religion? No I don't. When that discussion insights anger and hate towards groups of people that is wrong. That sort of discussion is often frowned upon not matter what the discussion is.

Do I want to remove Creationism from schools? Honestly no I think it has its place in schools. I feel that place is comparative religion courses.

What right of your's is being taken away by allowing 2 men, or 2 women to marry?

Free speech and freedom exists for all, or it's not freedom. When the will of one side is taken away only because the other disagrees. Freedon is then turned into a matrix control system. Where the favored side gets their way always, and the other side either has to concede or fight. People will only step back so far until they say enough is enough.

Do you yell fire in crowded movie theaters? I'm sure there are groups of people who think that not being able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater feel that their right to pursue happiness is being infringed.

Are people not allowed to discuss religion anywhere?

Do you see a problem with the atheist-evolutionist movment on YouTube eliminating Christian-creationist freedom of expression? Getting rid of the opposition only proves evolution can no longer stand up to any opposing views. And I see ZERO atheists speaking out against this.

From what I understand it goes both ways. I don't know which side started it. But I do know it has happened on both sides. Even the death threats. So...I fail to see your point in asking this. Neither side is innocent in my eyes.

Well then that is going above and beyond juvenile to being outright disturbing.Ã‚Â Fortunately there is no way to actually defend these types of outbursts.Ã‚Â People need to learn to play nicely.Ã‚Â This goes for both sides.Ã‚Â Ikester, slippery slope arguments are fundamentally flawed because they make the wrong assumption that people will not be able to tell the difference between acceptable and not acceptable in the future.

And there are people out there ready to push us over the slippery slope. People like Peter Singer who thinks humans should have the right to kill their babies several days after being fully born.

When talking about to adults of the same s@x they are able to make these informed decisions themselves.Ã‚Â They are able to enter contracts.Ã‚Â They are responsible for their own actions.Ã‚Â Children are never, and will never be assumed to be able to make such decisions.Ã‚Â

Have you ever seen a g@y parade in their full glory?

pedos are predators looking for a way to fulfill their own desires.Ã‚Â This is more along the lines of rape than anything else.

Rape is something along the lines of human beings that are old enough to have s@x. When a person destroys a child's innocence, it goes way beyond rape.

I can see you have a lot of anger with these issues here and I'm not too sure where to begin.Ã‚Â Do I think people don't have the right to discuss their religion?Ã‚Â No I don't.Ã‚Â When that discussion insights anger and hate towards groups of people that is wrong.Ã‚Â That sort of discussion is often frowned upon not matter what the discussion is.Ã‚Â

Every creationist here has experienced this on one level are another. So what does that tell you about evolution and what it supports?

Do I want to remove Creationism from schools?Ã‚Â Honestly no I think it has its place in schools.Ã‚Â I feel that place is comparative religion courses.

And I can prove evolution is not only a religion. But has it's roots in pagan religion dating back to Egyptian times around when Moses was alive. Yet I see no religious restriction on it. Or even that the idea was not originally thought up by Darwin.

What right of your's is being taken away by allowing 2 men, or 2 women to marry?Do you yell fire in crowded movie theaters?Ã‚Â I'm sure there are groups of people who think that not being able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater feel that their right to pursue happiness is being infringed.

Then let's okay every type of s@x there is. Just because a group deems it okay, does that make it okay? Also, if they had such a majority support for the cause. Then why does not the issue ever come up for "public vote"? Instead they use under-handed tactics, along with gobs of money to get their way.

Are people not allowed to discuss religion anywhere?Ã‚Â From what I understand it goes both ways.Ã‚Â I don't know which side started it.Ã‚Â But I do know it has happened on both sides.Ã‚Â Even the death threats.Ã‚Â So...I fail to see your point in asking this.Ã‚Â Neither side is innocent in my eyes.

When is the last time you were told to die or go kill yourself all because of your belief in evolution?Do you get these threats on a regular bases for what you believe?Do you have a creationist ready to fight you at work if you even bring up the subject, even though he will and expects you to keep your mouth shut while he mocks you?

Until you walk in the shoes of a creationist, you don't know what it's like. It's the same as not knowing what racism is until you become black.

When talking about to adults of the same s@x they are able to make these informed decisions themselves. They are able to enter contracts. They are responsible for their own actions. Children are never, and will never be assumed to be able to make such decisions.

Children are becoming more and more desensitized on a daily basis, and told they can make these decisions on a daily basis. That they are responsible for their own actions! They are told that they have the right to decide if they were Ã¢â‚¬Å“bornÃ¢â‚¬Â H*m*sexuals. That itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s okay to perform Ã¢â‚¬Å“unnaturalÃ¢â‚¬Â acts that in no way supports evolution because same s@x partnerships cannot reproduce! So, how then do same s@x partnerships procreate? By recruiting! By promulgating the idea of relativism, by promulgating the idea that there is no such thing as truth, by promulgating the idea that everyone has the right to make their own truths.

Yes, Children are be assumed to be able to make such decisions (if it suites the relativist agenda). But, whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s okay for g*yÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to have rights, then itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just as acceptable for ANY other unnatural S@xual proclivity! Which leads us to:

pedos are predators looking for a way to fulfill their own desires. This is more along the lines of rape than anything else.

A relativist has no moral standing to complain about the pedophiles proclivities. For, if we are nothing more than bags of biological stuff, Ã¢â‚¬Å“molecules in motionÃ¢â‚¬Â, and the fittest surviving on the weaker, than the P*dophile is no-more and no-less than the H*mosexual, the lesbian, the metro-S@xual, the yuppie or the straight person. If one is but an animal, then one can find a way to fulfill their own desires in any way one wishes. Because, if we go to nothing from this life, and we desire to go for all the gusto during this life, then no one has the right to shut down that gusto! What makes any one Ã¢â‚¬Å“bag of biological stuffÃ¢â‚¬Â any more (or less) right than the other?

Do I want to remove Creationism from schools? Honestly no I think it has its place in schools. I feel that place is comparative religion courses.

And, macro-evolution should be restricted to the same classes.

Are people not allowed to discuss religion anywhere?

According to our constitution, that is indeed a right. But according to the moral relativists, historical revisionists, and liberal elite, that "constitutional" right being erased. And it is being done unconstitutionallyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Don't worry about it Ike, I enjoy a good and heady conversation. I also enjoy the verbal sparring (as long as itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s contextual), because much can be gleaned from it. Also, I enjoy conversing with Java because he doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t attempt to give more than he takes.

The only thing I might ask; is that if this part of the conversation goes too far astray, the thread might be split accordingly. But, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll pm you if I start getting that feeling.

And there are people out there ready to push us over the slippery slope. People like Peter Singer who thinks humans should have the right to kill their babies several days after being fully born.

That my friend is sick. Murder is murder.

Have you ever seen a g@y parade in their full glory?

Yes I have. I have worked with many people who are g*y. My best friends brother is g*y. I have helped g*ys start business. I have also seen the results of hate crimes against g*ys.

Do you think that anyone would chose to be g*y? You know with the threat of being lynched, beaten, killed over their S@xual preference? The hate of their parents, and friends, and peers? It's horrible how they are treated, and you act like its their choice...Who would ask for that kind of treatment?

Rape is something along the lines of human beings that are old enough to have s@x. When a person destroys a child's innocence, it goes way beyond rape.

On this we agree. On this every non-pedo agrees. For this is the reason why your slippery slope argument won't happen.

Every creationist here has experienced this on one level are another. So what does that tell you about evolution and what it supports?

You would be surprised the hatred I experience for being an Atheist. I usually don't discuss my personal beliefs with people because it has ruined many working relationships and some friendships... You act as if being a Creationist is the life of a pariah, and maybe in some circles it is. But the general populace would accept you as they would any other Christain, seeing about 80% of people in America are Christian.

And I can prove evolution is not only a religion. But has it's roots in pagan religion dating back to Egyptian times around when Moses was alive. Yet I see no religious restriction on it. Or even that the idea was not originally thought up by Darwin.

You have your reasons for believing this, and I am sure there is validity to them. But you don't have to convince me of this. You need to convince the US Government of this.

Then let's okay every type of s@x there is. Just because a group deems it okay, does that make it okay? Also, if they had such a majority support for the cause. Then why does not the issue ever come up for "public vote"? Instead they use under-handed tactics, along with gobs of money to get their way.

You didn't answer my question. What rights of yours are being infringed by allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry, or have a civil union.?

I'm obviously not in support of S@xual relationships between 2 beings who are not able to make such decisions. So between people and animals no, between people and children obviously no. 2 Adults should be allowed to participate in a relationship.

When is the last time you were told to die or go kill yourself all because of your belief in evolution?Do you get these threats on a regular bases for what you believe?Do you have a creationist ready to fight you at work if you even bring up the subject, even though he will and expects you to keep your mouth shut while he mocks you?

Until you walk in the shoes of a creationist, you don't know what it's like. It's the same as not knowing what racism is until you become black.

Sorry Ron, I derailed your thread. I'll shut up now .

On a daily basis, about Evolution no. But the hate I feel from being an Atheist is profound. The hate that H*m*sexuals receive is profound.

Ikester, you are in the majority here. You are also letting your opinions be known on the internet...the world hate machine. So what you are experiencing on the internet comes as no surprise. It's unfortunate, but not surprising. People are anonymous on the internet and they let their hatred be known.

The fellow at work...I don't know what's wrong with this person. Is he the only vocal one? Do you have support from others, but they just aren't vocal? I can tell you that we would get along fine, and we have opposite views.

Children are becoming more and more desensitized on a daily basis, and told they can make these decisions on a daily basis. That they are responsible for their own actions! They are told that they have the right to decide if they were Ã¢â‚¬Å“bornÃ¢â‚¬Â H*m*sexuals. That itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s okay to perform Ã¢â‚¬Å“unnaturalÃ¢â‚¬Â acts that in no way supports evolution because same s@x partnerships cannot reproduce! So, how then do same s@x partnerships procreate? By recruiting! By promulgating the idea of relativism, by promulgating the idea that there is no such thing as truth, by promulgating the idea that everyone has the right to make their own truths.

Okay there is a lot here to address.

1. Evolution would be perfectly fine( if it had a mind and a personality) with H*m*sexuals. As long as they are able to contribute to the survival of the species then they would be an outcome from evolution that would not 'die out'.

2. I've already addressed this point with my reply to Ikester. People don't choose to live a life that will lead to be ostracized by family and friends. That will lead to a life that can come to a terrible end when someone filled with hatred decides its time to end that life...

Yes, Children are be assumed to be able to make such decisions (if it suites the relativist agenda). But, whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s okay for g*yÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to have rights, then itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just as acceptable for ANY other unnatural S@xual proclivity! Which leads us to:

Ah but it isn't. Again Children are children. They are not capable of making these decisions. No matter how 'sexualized children's fashions become, they are not able to make these decision.

A relativist has no moral standing to complain about the pedophiles proclivities. For, if we are nothing more than bags of biological stuff, Ã¢â‚¬Å“molecules in motionÃ¢â‚¬Â, and the fittest surviving on the weaker, than the P*dophile is no-more and no-less than the H*mosexual, the lesbian, the metro-S@xual, the yuppie or the straight person. If one is but an animal, then one can find a way to fulfill their own desires in any way one wishes. Because, if we go to nothing from this life, and we desire to go for all the gusto during this life, then no one has the right to shut down that gusto! What makes any one Ã¢â‚¬Å“bag of biological stuffÃ¢â‚¬Â any more (or less) right than the other?

See that's just it. We are not just bags of biological goop. We are people with minds, hopes desires and dreams. We live in a society that lets us strive for happiness, but does not want this search for happiness to hinder another's. In fact I have no idea where you even came up with your view on all of this.

And, macro-evolution should be restricted to the same classes.

Again its not me you have to convince of this, it is the Government.

According to our constitution, that is indeed a right. But according to the moral relativists, historical revisionists, and liberal elite, that "constitutional" right being erased. And it is being done unconstitutionallyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s always a lot to address, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why I have three zip codes (ba-dum-splash). Thank you, thank you very much, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be here all week! Sorry, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just in that mood!

1. Evolution would be perfectly fine( if it had a mind and a personality) with H*m*sexuals. As long as they are able to contribute to the survival of the species then they would be an outcome from evolution that would not 'die out'.

If they cannot procreate, then they are an anathema to evolution. Evolution is supposed to be survival via procreation.

2. I've already addressed this point with my reply to Ikester. People don't choose to live a life that will lead to be ostracized by family and friends. That will lead to a life that can come to a terrible end when someone filled with hatred decides its time to end that life...

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think it was addressed. Or I should say, I disagree with the assessment. Man will give in to his base lusts if he so feels the inhibition. And the life style has come in and out of vogue for thousands of years now. But the bottom line is, regardless of personal views, it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a natural act.

Ah but it isn't. Again Children are children. They are not capable of making these decisions. No matter how 'sexualized children's fashions become, they are not able to make these decision.

You and I agree on that point Java. But our current liberal educational system pushes the S@xual agenda on our children. As if they were mature enough to make such decisions.

See that's just it. We are not just bags of biological goop. We are people with minds, hopes desires and dreams.

I totally agree JavaÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ But this just doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t comport with materialistic atheism.

We live in a society that lets us strive for happiness, but does not want this search for happiness to hinder another's. In fact I have no idea where you even came up with your view on all of this.

Why, in a materialist atheistic world-view, should we even care about someone elseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s happiness? What does it matter? What if my happiness doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with your happiness and your happiness is squelching my happiness? Which of out happiness trumpÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the others!DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get me wrong, I totally agree that we should work towards a common good. But that just doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t comport with the materialistic atheistic world view! Like Ike said concerning Peter SingerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s atheistic views. Why should my happiness trump his happiness?